Can a train company ban me for complaining too much?

[Randomer]

It would seem hard to justify from purely a public relations point of view, if the OP is successfully complaining and being offered ex gratia compensation, for a TOC to refuse to engage with them. Although ex-gratia is not admitting liability it would seem a very strange move to offer payment on one hand and then potentially refuse to engage on the other.

The ombudsman is a more interesting question. It would be interesting to know the rate of success the OP has had with the ombudsman. If they are successful the majority of the time then again it would be hard for a TOC to refuse to engage if publicity brought this to light.

 

[Dr Hoo]

It seems from the very first post that the OP may have some ‘claims’ ‘refused’ and then sought Deadlock Letters to open up the Ombudsman route. Can the OP comment on how the Ombudsman has been dealing with his referred cases?

In general terms it seems that the OP is still getting ‘refunds’ (or goodwill payments to the value of his regular journeys) so this may be hypothetical.

The main issue as I see it is that the ‘operators’ don’t really seem to have any skin in the game. They operate the (inadequately short) trains to meet their contract specification, add the refunds to their costs and sent the bill to the DfT.

In the final analysis all the financial pain falls on The Taxpayer.

 

[Kenny G]

Is there any requirement for a business to engage with you, as long as they aren't refusing to engage with you due to a protected characteristic?

Provision of Services Regulations 2009

Complaints​

12.—(1) The provider of a service must—

(a)respond to complaints from recipients of the service as quickly as possible, and

(b)make their best efforts to find a satisfactory solution to complaints from such recipients.

(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to complaints that are vexatious.

The Provision of Services Regulations 2009

These Regulations implement Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market (OJ No. L 376, 27.12.2006, p.36) (“the Directive”).

www.legislation.gov.uk

ETA: Just noticed regulation 2(c) states it does not apply in the field of transport..

 

[43096]

When I say busy, I mean every single aisle is full as well as everyday doorway. No one can move. If one passenger wants to get off, people have to get off the train just to let off passengers. People physically can't breath and people at the next stations can't get on. People are going into toilets for extra room.

If people “physically can’t breath” then we would hear more about it as they’d be collapsing. As you say you can actually get on the train I rather think you are pulling a fast one. There is no guarantee of getting a seat.

 

[aaronspence]

The main issue as I see it is that the ‘operators’ don’t really seem to have any skin in the game. They operate the (inadequately short) trains to meet their contract specification, add the refunds to their costs and sent the bill to the DfT.

In the final analysis all the financial pain falls on The Taxpayer.

As always its us that pay the bill, Hopefully the OP doesnt purposely get on busy trains just to then complain and get the trip for free.

 

[BlueLeanie]

Provision of Services Regulations 2009

Complaints​

12.—(1) The provider of a service must—

(a)respond to complaints from recipients of the service as quickly as possible, and

(b)make their best efforts to find a satisfactory solution to complaints from such recipients.

(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to complaints that are vexatious.

The Provision of Services Regulations 2009

These Regulations implement Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market (OJ No. L 376, 27.12.2006, p.36) (“the Directive”).

www.legislation.gov.uk

ETA: Just noticed regulation 2(c) states it does not apply in the field of transport..

That relates to past events.

I don't see anything in there that makes it illegal to decline to deliver a service now or in the future.

 

[Kenny G]

That relates to past events.

I don't see anything in there that makes it illegal to decline to deliver a service now or in the future.

It makes it illegal to fail to respond to complaints which I took to be the meaning of "engage with" In your query.
You are correct that as a general principle businesses don't have to accept customers,

 

[island]

It makes it illegal to fail to respond to complaints which was the original query.

But not, as you have observed, in the field of transport. So best to move on.

 

[Ekl]

Many trains have passenger counters and other sensors to identify busy trains and even the parts of a train that get the most overcrowded. They may be consulting this information to validate your complaints, so I'd absolutely be sure that every complaint has merit and there weren't quieter coaches on the train you could have used.

I'm sure they're also waiting to catch you out with a claim against a train that wasn't overcrowded, which I'm sure you've never done or intend to.

I see, who would be waiting to catch me out? The complaints team? And what would be the consequence?

I've never lied about anything and everything I say can be cross checked. I'm just wondering what their procedure is.

It would seem hard to justify from purely a public relations point of view, if the OP is successfully complaining and being offered ex gratia compensation, for a TOC to refuse to engage with them. Although ex-gratia is not admitting liability it would seem a very strange move to offer payment on one hand and then potentially refuse to engage on the other.

The ombudsman is a more interesting question. It would be interesting to know the rate of success the OP has had with the ombudsman. If they are successful the majority of the time then again it would be hard for a TOC to refuse to engage if publicity brought this to light.

Do you mean if they've offered me compensation one time then it seems unlikely that after a few times they can refuse me compensation? As it's the same reason?

 

[Ghostbus]

The most obvious way they could ban you from their service is by claiming you are harassing their complaints staff.

 

[AlterEgo]

Do you mean if they've offered me compensation one time then it seems unlikely that after a few times they can refuse me compensation? As it's the same reason?

They can stop offering you compensation whenever they like. None is due contractually for being on a busy train, and it is likely they will simply stop this practice in future once a manager reviews your CRM file.

What’s most surprising about the whole episode is the ombudsman is suggesting the train company pay compensation, which they have done on occasion. The ombudsman is worse than useless and cannot enforce anything!

The most obvious way they could ban you from their service is by claiming you are harassing their complaints staff.

Simply writing a complaint isn’t harassment of staff.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I think that you might find that at some point the ‘company’, which has been handing over ‘ex gratia’ or ‘goodwill’ payments on behalf of The Taxpayer simply for the reason that a train has been ‘full’ may decide to cease further such payments. (This does not cover things like entitlement to Delay Repay if you were, say, genuinely unable to board and had to catch the next service an hour later.)

It may surprise the OP to know that most people who travel in a train with standees don’t put in a formal complaint on every occasion and expect significant financial redress.

 

[Ekl]

They can stop offering you compensation whenever they like. None is due contractually for being on a busy train, and it is likely they will simply stop this practice in future once a manager reviews your CRM file.

What’s most surprising about the whole episode is the ombudsman is suggesting the train company pay compensation, which they have done on occasion. The ombudsman is worse than useless and cannot enforce anything!


Simply writing a complaint isn’t harassment of staff.

So what is the role of the ombudsman?

 

[AlterEgo]

So what is the role of the ombudsman?

Essentially it is to ensure train companies are following their own processes, but it is entirely voluntary and non binding. They have no enforcement powers and cannot compel a train company to resolve a complaint in any way. It’s a largely pointless organisation which was set up as a political sop.

 

[Ekl]

Essentially it is to ensure train companies are following their own processes, but it is entirely voluntary and non binding. They have no enforcement powers and cannot compel a train company to resolve a complaint in any way. It’s a largely pointless organisation which was set up as a political sop.

Oh I see, so that's why you're surprised that the company is listening to the rail ombudsman?

 

[SuspectUsual]

Out of interest, could the OP give us an idea of how much compensation they’ve been getting, as a % of the ticket price?

 

[AlterEgo]

Oh I see, so that's why you're surprised that the company is listening to the rail ombudsman?

Yes. Because they don’t have to, and the ombudsman does not usually do much to help passengers.

 

[jon0844]

I see, who would be waiting to catch me out? The complaints team? And what would be the consequence?

I've never lied about anything and everything I say can be cross checked. I'm just wondering what their procedure is.

I wasn't suggesting you were doing anything wrong by making something up, but your questions about how they might check or what might happen seemed odd. Why would you need to worry about what checks they might make, or what would happen if something was amiss?

You know every complaint was 100% genuine.

 

[rg177]

From someone who also dealt with complaints (of a specific nature) at various TOCs there were flags you could set on accounts, such as 'frequent feedback provider' or 'reputational risk' (if they had a history of just jumping straight to the media for example). Some people did complain a lot and I'd just take it as it came so long as they weren't awful to me in the process.

Basically if your complaints are valid (but repetitive/irritating) I can't see what a TOC could do. If you're exaggerating, being unpleasant or similar then yes, I can see there being a problem. However I can't recall any instances in my own department (and if there was it will have been circulated) of someone needing to be ignored or have action taken against them. It was far more regular for us to take the view of "let's get this sorted so it doesn't become a bigger problem".

Be factual, be reasonable and remember there's a human being dealing with your complaint and I can't see a problem. Certainly you'd not be banned from travel unless you made particularly egregious false accusations against staff or behaved in a way towards them where someone's safety was at risk.

 

[Ekl]

From someone who also dealt with complaints (of a specific nature) at various TOCs there were flags you could set on accounts, such as 'frequent feedback provider' or 'reputational risk' (if they had a history of just jumping straight to the media for example). Some people did complain a lot and I'd just take it as it came so long as they weren't awful to me in the process.

Basically if your complaints are valid (but repetitive/irritating) I can't see what a TOC could do. If you're exaggerating, being unpleasant or similar then yes, I can see there being a problem. However I can't recall any instances in my own department (and if there was it will have been circulated) of someone needing to be ignored or have action taken against them. It was far more regular for us to take the view of "let's get this sorted so it doesn't become a bigger problem".

Be factual, be reasonable and remember there's a human being dealing with your complaint and I can't see a problem. Certainly you'd not be banned from travel unless you made particularly egregious false accusations against staff or behaved in a way towards them where someone's safety was at risk.

Thank you for sharing your experience.

 

[Ghostbus]

Unreasonably Persistent, Vexatious or Abusive Complaints Policy - Spelthorne Borough Council

Unreasonably Persistent, Vexatious or Abusive Complaints Policy

www.spelthorne.gov.uk

That's a policy I found quite easily on the net. Simply making a valid complaint enough times that it disrupts their ability to handle other people's complaints properly, can be considered harassment. It all comes down to the magic word - "reasonable".

 

[Ekl]

Unreasonably Persistent, Vexatious or Abusive Complaints Policy - Spelthorne Borough Council

Unreasonably Persistent, Vexatious or Abusive Complaints Policy

www.spelthorne.gov.uk

That's a policy I found quite easily on the net. Simply making a valid complaint enough times that it disrupts their ability to handle other people's complaints properly, can be considered harassment. It all comes down to the magic word - "reasonable".

Do you know anyone who this has happened to?

 

[skyhigh]

For what it's worth, I'm aware that Northern have previously taken action against a serial 'complainant' who made things up to claim refunds.

As long as you're being genuine in your complaints you won't have a problem - but I would expect that you won't be getting a refund any more when your complaint history gets noticed.

 

[Ekl]

For what it's worth, I'm aware that Northern have previously taken action against a serial 'complainant' who made things up to claim refunds.

As long as you're being genuine in your complaints you won't have a problem - but I would expect that you won't be getting a refund any more when your complaint history gets noticed.

What happened to that person who complained?

In their case from what you've said they were lying, in my case it's genuine.

 

[redreni]

If complaining several times doesn't work, continuing to raise the same complaint repetitively isn't going to work, assuming the intention is to get the issue resolved rather than simply to annoy the people who work for the train company.

That said, I did once use the tactic of expressing an intention to fill in a complaint form daily. The circumstances were that I was living in Slough and working a summer job at Legoland, Windsor. The bus that got me to work in time for my regular shift was the Green Line 702 from London (Victoria) to Bracknell - I would get on by the Laboratories in Slough, which was a timing point on the timetable. Every day the bus would go past about 15 minutes early. It would then wait at Slough Bus Station and would leave there at the correct time. This meant I had to leave home 15 minutes early which made my commute 15 minutes longer than it was supposed to be.

I that case I felt the issue was easy to put right (simply by telling the drivers to pull into the layby at the official timing point in Langley and wait until the correct time to move on), so to my mind it was justifiable to keep writing out polite complaint forms until they fixed it, which they did after about four complaints.

As mentioned above, though, you do need to be sure you're asking for something that the people dealing with your complaint might conceivably be able to do. Otherwise your complaints are futile or misdirected.

 

[BlueLeanie]

Be factual, be reasonable and remember there's a human being dealing with your complaint and I can't see a problem.

That's less and less likely as the days progress. Complaints that I make nowadays seem to be getting dealt with by AI bots more often than not. To be fair they are usually swifter and more responsive than humans when you input your complaint in a straightforward format that they makes them more likely to respond in your favour.

If complaining several times doesn't work, continuing to raise the same complaint repetitively isn't going to work, assuming the intention is to get the issue resolved rather than simply to annoy the people who work for the train company.

Oh, I can assure you, it will work. You just have to keep escalating.

Or as I emailed to a deodorant manufacturer's company lawyers. "Do you not think the better advice to your client would have been to pay the £2.49 to settle the complaint rather than open a case, prepare a stroppy inaccurate letter, and send it by DHL?". A cheque for £2.49 arrived by DHL "in full and final settlement" the following day.

 

[Dr Hoo]

We are still in the dark about what the ‘problem’ is and which company is involved (beyond ‘overcrowding’). The problem on the rail network is that ‘solutions’ often take many years and cost billions, e.g. the wholesale upgrade of the TransPennine axis, through Leeds.

This sort of thing cannot be sorted out by a customer service team, neither will the answer or horizon be any different tomorrow or the day after.

In the absence of a massive injection of additional goverment/public money things may not improve at all. What is the point of continually reporting the same problem to the same team? Regular compensation, I suppose.

 

[WelshBluebird]

From someone who also dealt with complaints (of a specific nature) at various TOCs there were flags you could set on accounts, such as 'frequent feedback provider' or 'reputational risk' (if they had a history of just jumping straight to the media for example).

I assume a subject access request would allow someone to get that information if held about them?

What steps do ToCs take to make sure that data is actually accurate? I guess it depends on how those things are identified but if they are categorising someone as "reputation risk" then they better have the data to back it up! I ask as I've been subject to mistaken identity by platform staff in the past (being told they have had to deal with me before as a troublemaker which was simply false - if that was a mistaken memory then no complaints but if something like that could be based on incorrect data then ToCs really do need to be careful).

What is the point of continually reporting the same problem to the same team? Regular compensation, I suppose.

If nothing else keeping up the noise that things need to improve. If there's just one complaint then you have no chance but if there's many then at least that's more likely to get noticed.

 

[rg177]

I assume a subject access request would allow someone to get that information if held about them?

What steps do ToCs take to make sure that data is actually accurate? I guess it depends on how those things are identified but if they are categorising osmoeke as "reputation risk" then they better have the data to back it up!

Certainly if someone did a SAR then they'd have to be told that that's how they were categorised and it'd have to be justified.

People did submit a SAR during my time in the role in question but they were not categorised as such - so I can't comment on how it would have gone down (I think I saw that particular flag once ever).

 

[12LDA28C]

Given how many services are now ‘busy’ I am wondering how many other Forum members routinely ask for a refund just because some people are standing.

I am quite surprised that the operator has been continually paying out to be honest. All of these refunds are at the expense of ‘the taxpayer’ after all.

I would imagine that if an Operator is 'continually paying out' compensation due to overcrowded trains, that would give serious credence to any claim of requirement for additional rolling stock, particularly if a cascade has been requested or a tender issued by the TOC.

The main issue as I see it is that the ‘operators’ don’t really seem to have any skin in the game. They operate the (inadequately short) trains to meet their contract specification, add the refunds to their costs and sent the bill to the DfT.

In the final analysis all the financial pain falls on The Taxpayer.

This view is over-simplified and overly cynical. TOCs generally operate the best service they are able to within the restrictions placed on them. Many would like to be able to run longer and more frequent trains but are prevented from doing so by various factors, not least of which is often obstruction and intransigence from the DfT.